Public Safety Committee on Oct. 27th, 2022

[Stéphane Wall]

Yes, please allow me to add one final thing to complete Mr. Gélinas' answer.

As former police officers, we understand that the authorities might be reluctant to intervene on a first nations reserve. The issue is extremely sensitive, due to the fact that there have been crises in the past. We are suggesting working around the reserves. We could have surveillance on all the roads that lead to reserves and carry out a large number of inspections. We would like to increase the number of inspections carried out on vehicles leaving the reserves and headed towards Toronto and Montreal. We should also carry out more inspections on waterways situated near reserves and intercept a greater number of boats. We have to give the police officers of the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP who are patrolling these waterways more resources that will enable them to intervene.

We also have to sign cooperation agreements with the Americans. We know that if a gunrunner on a boat decides to flee the police, the police officers will abandon the chase and head back to base once he gets to the United States.

Basically, we have to cooperate better, get the necessary logistical tools and work around the reserves if we do not wish to cause a political crisis involving first nation reserves. That is the way to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor, for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Monsieur Gélinas, I'd like to start with you, please.

In your opening remarks, you covered many different parts of Bill C-21. You mentioned the fact that there are existing red flag provisions in the Criminal Code, and that's true. If you look at existing sections 109 and 110, there are mandatory prohibition orders and discretionary prohibition orders.

I think the testimony we've received on the proposed addition through Bill C-21 of this red flag law is probably what we as a committee are struggling with the most. A number of witnesses are quite concerned that the provisions in Bill C-21 are going to unfairly place the onus on someone who might be the victim of firearms-related violence to go through an already overburdened court system by themselves.

We've certainly heard from police services what their primary wish is: If someone finds themselves in a threatening position, they should always go to the police first. In our previous panel, Chief Evan Bray of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that, absolutely, police should always be used as a first resort. However, he was also in favour of other avenues being available to people.

Do you see any instances where the provisions in Bill C-21—these new red flag provisions and going through a court system—might be preferable to using the police?

[André Gélinas]

As you have stated, in practice, most of the red flag clauses exist already. For example, when a person calls the Canadian Firearms Centre, one of the first things that they are asked is if he or she has concerns regarding their partner or another person. If the answer is yes, that person will immediately be put through to the relevant authorities.

That said, I fully support what the other police officers who testified before me have stated: when a person is in danger, the first people to call are always the police. It would take an inordinate amount of time to go before the courts to try and get a firearm licence suspended, as is proposed in these amendments, and the courts are already overwhelmed.

The problem, as I see it, is that people can go before the courts to explain their point of view in good faith, but the judge won't get the police officers' perspective. Police officers have information that the judge cannot access at that time. For example, the judge does not have access to data banks or to police expertise. He or she will simply have to base their decision on the person before them who has expressed their concerns.

Finally, I have to say that this clause could also be used for fraudulent reasons or revenge, especially when it comes to disputes between ex‑partners. As we know, anything goes if you want to hurt a former partner, unfortunately. This could be a way to—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Gélinas.

I'm sorry, but I have to get to another question. Thank you for that answer.

Monsieur Wall, I'd like to talk to you.

In your opening statement, you mentioned the fact that sport shooters who belong to clubs and practise regularly with their handguns should be exempt from Bill C-21. Chief Evan Bray of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police confirmed the same thing. It is his position that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, but he does support law-abiding handgun owners' ability to practise their sport.

I asked him if we could find a middle ground here by imposing stricter requirements for membership, demonstrating an actual need for the handgun through regular practice and so on. Do you have any further comments on the middle ground that we're trying to reach with respect to the provisions in Bill C-21

[Stéphane Wall]

I agree with Chief Bray.

In terms of accommodations or amendments that need to be integrated into the bill, if the bill passes as it is now, at the very least we would need measures to accommodate hunters and sport shooters. Sport shooters are already members of a shooting club. Could we add more conditions, for example requiring that sport shooters, in addition to their regular training sessions, participate in a shooting competition at least once a year? That way, sport shooters who already have a licence and who are truly practising the sport could be exempted from all the measures contained in the bill.

Let's be clear: we have a bill on handguns, but are they really a problem in Canada? We know what the problem is and we have to start tackling it head‑on. The problem is that in every big Canadian city, nine times out of 10, members of street gangs and organized crime syndicates are using illegal firearms to commit crimes. That's what legislators should be targeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We will now proceed to the second round. Once again, this round will have to be abbreviated.

We will go to Mr. Shipley for five minutes, please.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today, and thank you for the service you've put in for many years.

I'm sure that over the many years you've worked, you've heard about how tough it is to get enough resources to do your job, and that hasn't changed. We've heard quite a bit over these hearings that it's getting tougher and tougher, so I'd like your opinion on this, please.

In 2021, the SPVM launched a new police unit, the integrated team against firearms trafficking. Between February and August 2021, it carried out 19 searches, made 17 arrests and seized 27 illegal weapons, which was obviously good work.

Do you feel that Bill C-21 could lead in the direction of using already strained police resources and could actually hinder targeted teams like this from doing their job by removing resources?

[André Gélinas]

If I may, I would like to answer this question.

Bill C‑21 in no way meets the needs of the police. You are absolutely right on that point. We don't have enough police officers. We can't even replace the police officers that retire every year. When we set up special units to deal with urgent situations, we are taking away officers from other units that are deemed less important but actually are important.

Yes, we should be welcoming and encouraging police seizures. However, we should realize that we are seizing just a minute portion of all the guns coming into the country. As my colleague said, an individual was stopped last year with 249 guns in his possession. You know, criminals only have to be lucky once, whereas we, the police, have to be lucky all the time. Obviously, when an individual is stopped with 249 firearms in his possession, we can't even imagine the massive number of guns that are coming into the country without being intercepted. From that point of view, it is obvious that we will always be trying to catch up.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Do you think one of the negative consequences of Bill C-21 is that we could see an increase in smuggling operations, since legal handguns would be unavailable for purchase? Do you think it could cause an increase in smuggling?

Perhaps I'll go to Mr. Wall for that.

[Stéphane Wall]

No, I do not think that the measures contained in the current bill will have any real impact on this issue.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Gélinas, you mentioned in your opening remarks that no smuggler had received the current maximum sentence of 10 years, so adding more years is really not doing anything. I'm very interested to hear about that. Today was the first time I've heard it.

Do you have any more data on that? Where did you get that resource from? What types of sentences are you seeing them get handed for smuggling?

[André Gélinas]

I don't have any figures to give you, but based on my experience and my discussions with many colleagues who are also firearms specialists and who are still working, I can give you an idea.

For example, let's talk about something that happened last year. I mentioned it earlier. William Rainville was sentenced to four or five years in prison, but only spent one year in a federal penitentiary.

Obviously, the maximum mandatory sentences provided for in the Criminal Code are rarely imposed, and by that I mean almost never. This is due to case law, whereby judges are bound by previous decisions. Increasing the maximum sentence to 14 years can seem like a good idea, but how can we even think that this measure will be effective, when we know that 10‑year sentences are rarely handed down?

The same logic applies to nearly every crime. Maximum sentences are only given in rare cases.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I'd like to address my last question, in the time remaining, to Mr. Gélinas and Mr. Wall, because you both made very interesting comments. You each worded them a little differently, but in your opening remarks you both made very similar statements.

Mr. Gélinas, you said that Bill C-21 should be targeting real weapons. I hope nothing was lost in translation, but that's the way it came across. Mr. Wall, you said that Bill C-21 was not aimed at the right target. Perhaps you could expand on those two statements, gentlemen.

[André Gélinas]

As I said previously, only 10% to 16% of guns seized after a crime is committed are handguns that come from Canada. And yet, all the measures contained in the bill target people who have a licence, who have been vetted and who are very rarely implicated in crime, even though there is no such thing as zero risk. I think we're missing the target here. We have abolished mandatory minimum sentences for criminals and we don't have enough resources at the border, whereas it is precisely through the border that the firearms are coming in. I don't think we're targeting the right things here.

[Stéphane Wall]

As for me, I would go back to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Wall, you can finish your answer quickly.

[Stéphane Wall]

As for me, I would go back to the comparison with traffic accidents caused by drunk drivers, who are criminals at the wheel. It is an absolute scourge. Drunk driving was the cause of many deaths every year. However, it would be completely illogical if the government decided to banish from the roads all vehicles and all good drivers who have a driving licence.

We have to fight the problem and find the right solution without targeting the entire population.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

We'll now go to Mr. Van Bynen, please, for five minutes.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I get into my questions, I want to be absolutely sure that the evidence being provided here and considered by this committee is actually based on fact and not opinion. I suggest that there is no evidence of lawlessness on the reserves. In fact, police services have appeared as witnesses on guns and gangs, and there is no evidence that there's more lawlessness on reserves than there is in any urban area or any population. In addition to that, there's no evidence that there is an epidemic of gun crime from immigrants who are crossing at Roxham Road. I just want to make sure this record actually reflects fact and not necessarily opinion.

Having said that, I will ask Mr. Wall a question.

The City of Montreal's council adopted a measure first proposed by your organization, the CCACV, to implement a helpline for parents. Having in mind that prevention is important, this helpline intended to ensure that if there was a risk of children falling into violence, there was some help for them.

Do you think having this type of project at a national level would be helpful?

[Stéphane Wall]

Thank you for the question. I see that you have done your homework.

Yes, on January 26, the CCACV did indeed send two letters to the media and gave a press conference to propose certain measures to the three levels of government in the fight against gun-related violence. We presented measures both in terms of prevention and repression.

For example, one of the first preventative measures that we suggested to the City of Montreal was approved three weeks after our press conference. We suggested a helpline, which would offer a sympathetic ear and practical help to parents who are seeing their children get caught up in violence.

The truth is that parents cannot keep up with technology at the same speed as their children. The kids are always two steps ahead: they use social media and deal and network with shady people and their parents can't keep up. However, sometimes mom or dad realize that their child has more money than they ever had before, that the child is no longer obeying the parents' rules or the house rules, that there is a change in attitude or behaviour and that the child smells like they've been taking drugs. In this type of situation, parents often find themselves at a loss. If there were a helpline managed by a team of specialists, parents would be able to dial a number and get advice.

The City of Montreal is studying the situation to determine which organization will manage the helpline. We hope that the organization will be selected in the coming weeks or months and that there will be a publicity campaign to inform parents of the existence of the centre. The resources provided could help parents understand what is going on with their children before they become violent criminals. It's a choice. We have to help parents behave responsibly when their children are very young. They have to be attentive. If they see that their child is getting into trouble and they call the centre to get some advice, we could prevent many young people from getting involved in a life of crime.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Would you support the Government of Canada making investments in frontline community organizations that could help shoulder the burden of community safety? For example, do you support the investment of approximately $565 million in support of 684 crime prevention interventions that have been funded through the national crime prevention strategy?

[Stéphane Wall]

Absolutely. We have to invest in prevention.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Would you support the $122.7 million that has supported 47 gang prevention and diversion projects, funded through the youth gang prevention fund, since 2017?

Would you also support the $250 million investment the government has made through the building safer communities fund, which provides direct funding to municipalities to strengthen local efforts and counter the social conditions that would lead to anti-social behaviour?

Do all of those programs make sense to you, sir?

[Stéphane Wall]

I don't know them all, but I would say that we have to invest in prevention.

We know that for community organizations, the problem is that there is no regular source of funding. All levels of government should provide long-term financing for projects, rather than for one or two years only. That way, the organizations wouldn't constantly have to apply for grants. The funding has to be regular and there must be some sort of accountability requirement. That's very important.